Did We Unknowingly Elect Hillary?

[YmirGF]

The nuclear option not only can be, it has been (Japan).
(Hey look....I can use bold too!)
It will be again if an attacked country sees imminent defeat.

True, but I do not see that, unless there was unusual provocation (like 9/11) with a clear path back to Iran. There would be a small window of opportunity for a nuclear response.

Let's hope this dog isn't rabid.

Not likely. Bellicose? Sure. Rabid? Nope.

 

[Kartari]

Hey Revoltingest,

Did We Unknowingly Elect Hillary?

Unknowingly...? If you are referring to her senatorial military record, why would anyone expect otherwise from Trump? He's a loose cannon. We've known candidate and president Trump has been a loose cannon since he started campaigning in 2015, at the very least. We saw this same level of hostility with North Korea last summer; North Korea responded to Trump's "fire and fury" bluster as a declaration of war by the U.S. against their country (to which then-Sec. of State Rex Tillerson was quietly sent over there to calm things down).

His warmongering should come as no surprise to anyone.

Further, if we had elected Hillary, we'd certainly be far better off in many ways. So no, we didn't elect her... we elected someone far, far worse.

Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.

Let's not forget to add his tossing of the Iran Nuclear Deal which, in effect, shrank the wait time for Iran to be allowed nukes from ten years to ZERO... :/

Why be forbidden nuke manufacturing for just ten years when we can let Iran start now? To quote our ever-eloquent moron-in-chief, it's the "Worst deal ever!"

* shakes head slowly *

For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

The U.S. has indeed gone above and beyond in interfering with other nations, even to the degree of ousting or even assassinating elected leadership in favor of dictators, so long as the new leadership is favorable to U.S. desires. This was true in Iran, as you wrote. The U.S. did so in Iran for oil. Looking at photos of far freer Iranian women in the 1970's (who could and did dress similarly to western women at the time) compared with after the start of compulsory hijab-wearing for women is very sad.

And yes, there are very valid reasons for hatred and distrust towards the U.S. in a number of parts of the world including the Middle East.

Your comment, "OK when we do it to others" bother me though. Of course it's not ok. Nor does our dark past excuse Russia's meddling in our elections today. What would be ok is if (a) the U.S. stops interfering with elected leaders to install dictators our own regimes-of-the-day prefer, and we also (b) stop tolerating bad behavior along the same lines from other nations (i.e. Russia).

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

It has been blatantly obvious to a lot of Americans that Trump had no intention of putting Americans first (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway). He has always intended to put Donald Trump and Donald Trump's egoic and personal business interests first. His self interest has always been his guiding "principle," if Trump can even be said to have a guiding "principle" other than the seemingly compulsive reactionary childishness of a five-year-old he expresses and acts on behalf of on a daily basis.

 

[Willamena]

I suspect that Trump has dementia.

 

[suncowiam]

Why is Hillary referenced?

That part makes no sense to me.

 

[Stevicus]

Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

I'm not sure if it was saber rattling initiated by Trump or by Iran's leadership. His tweet was apparently in response to a speech by Rouhani which Trump saw as threatening.

There is a significant difference here, though, in comparing Trump to Hillary. Hillary's saber-rattling against Iran would have also been saber-rattling against Russia. But with Trump forging friendlier ties with Russia, Iran has nowhere to turn for help if America's wrath is ever unleashed upon them.

That was always the big problem in regards to Iran. It wasn't so much because of Iran itself, but because of their more powerful to the neighbor to the north which has had a longer history in the region and which has had Iran in its sphere of influence many times in the past.

It was for much the same reason that the US and UK installed the Shah in 1953. Back in those days, we had Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan all within the US fold as staunch allies against the Russians, while the Russians saw it as provocative and threatening.

But after a time, Iran, Iraq, and other countries made it clear in no uncertain terms that they were fed up and done with being used as Western pawns and proxies. There were also secret deals made between Reagan and Iran, so a lot of what Iran has become today is largely because we made them that way. (That's what happens when we have foreign policy experts who fail to foresee the consequences of their actions and/or refuse to take responsibility for those consequences.)

But I don't think it means we have any reason to go to war with Iran now. We have no territorial claims in Iran, and they have no claims on American territory. Our primary economic interest in the region is oil, and that being the case, it shouldn't really matter to us who runs the gas station, as long as they're still pumping gas (and they have no reason not to, since that's their only source of revenue).

I don't think we'll ever be able to end all the squabbling and conflict which have dominated the region. Even if we do somehow conquer, neutralize, and/or pacify Iran, it won't change much of anything. It will still be endless conflict and a foreign policy quagmire.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey Revoltingest,



Unknowingly...? If you are referring to her senatorial military record, why would anyone expect otherwise from Trump? He's a loose cannon. We've known candidate and president Trump has been a loose cannon since he started campaigning in 2015, at the very least. We saw this same level of hostility with North Korea last summer; North Korea responded to Trump's "fire and fury" bluster as a declaration of war by the U.S. against their country (to which then-Sec. of State Rex Tillerson was quietly sent over there to calm things down).

His warmongering should come as no surprise to anyone.

Further, if we had elected Hillary, we'd certainly be far better off in many ways. So no, we didn't elect her... we elected someone far, far worse.



Let's not forget to add his tossing of the Iran Nuclear Deal which, in effect, shrank the wait time for Iran to be allowed nukes from ten years to ZERO... :/

Why be forbidden nuke manufacturing for just ten years when we can let Iran start now? To quote our ever-eloquent moron-in-chief, it's the "Worst deal ever!"

* shakes head slowly *



The U.S. has indeed gone above and beyond in interfering with other nations, even to the degree of ousting or even assassinating elected leadership in favor of dictators, so long as the new leadership is favorable to U.S. desires. This was true in Iran, as you wrote. The U.S. did so in Iran for oil. Looking at photos of far freer Iranian women in the 1970's (who could and did dress similarly to western women at the time) compared with after the start of compulsory hijab-wearing for women is very sad.

And yes, there are very valid reasons for hatred and distrust towards the U.S. in a number of parts of the world including the Middle East.

Your comment, "OK when we do it to others" bother me though. Of course it's not ok. Nor does our dark past excuse Russia's meddling in our elections today. What would be ok is if (a) the U.S. stops interfering with elected leaders to install dictators our own regimes-of-the-day prefer, and we also (b) stop tolerating bad behavior along the same lines from other nations (i.e. Russia).



It has been blatantly obvious to a lot of Americans that Trump had no intention of putting Americans first (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway). He has always intended to put Donald Trump and Donald Trump's egoic and personal business interests first. His self interest has always been his guiding "principle," if Trump can even be said to have a guiding "principle" other than the seemingly compulsive reactionary childishness of a five-year-old he expresses and acts on behalf of on a daily basis.

I think his idea of "putting America first" differs greatly from mine.
But the common accusation of putting himself first doesn't make
sense regarding an attack on Iran.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure if it was saber rattling initiated by Trump or by Iran's leadership. His tweet was apparently in response to a speech by Rouhani which Trump saw as threatening.

Trump initiated the conflagration by ditching the nuclear
deal with Iran, replacing that with economic sanctions.

There is a significant difference here, though, in comparing Trump to Hillary. Hillary's saber-rattling against Iran would have also been saber-rattling against Russia.

Her famous threat to "obliterate Iran" was about Israel, not Russia.

But with Trump forging friendlier ties with Russia, Iran has nowhere to turn for help if America's wrath is ever unleashed upon them.

That was always the big problem in regards to Iran. It wasn't so much because of Iran itself, but because of their more powerful to the neighbor to the north which has had a longer history in the region and which has had Iran in its sphere of influence many times in the past.

It was for much the same reason that the US and UK installed the Shah in 1953. Back in those days, we had Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan all within the US fold as staunch allies against the Russians, while the Russians saw it as provocative and threatening.

But after a time, Iran, Iraq, and other countries made it clear in no uncertain terms that they were fed up and done with being used as Western pawns and proxies. There were also secret deals made between Reagan and Iran, so a lot of what Iran has become today is largely because we made them that way. (That's what happens when we have foreign policy experts who fail to foresee the consequences of their actions and/or refuse to take responsibility for those consequences.)

But I don't think it means we have any reason to go to war with Iran now. We have no territorial claims in Iran, and they have no claims on American territory. Our primary economic interest in the region is oil, and that being the case, it shouldn't really matter to us who runs the gas station, as long as they're still pumping gas (and they have no reason not to, since that's their only source of revenue).

I don't think we'll ever be able to end all the squabbling and conflict which have dominated the region. Even if we do somehow conquer, neutralize, and/or pacify Iran, it won't change much of anything. It will still be endless conflict and a foreign policy quagmire.

We needn't end the region's squabbling.
But we can certainly work to avoid exacerbating it.

 

[Father Heathen]

And perhaps Iraq.

Post Saddam? I admit I don't follow the politics of that region closely, but I had thought Iran and Iraq got cozy once the Sunni minority lost control.

 

[Quetzal]

Why is Hillary referenced?

That part makes no sense to me.

During her campaign, critics were right to point out that she would be cold (at best) or openly hostile (at worst) towards Iran.

 

[suncowiam]

During her campaign, critics were right to point out that she would be cold (at best) or openly hostile (at worst) towards Iran.

What does that have to do with now?

 

[Quetzal]

What does that have to do with now?

Trump made open threats against Iran (via Twitter, of all things). One of the draws of Trump when he was campaigning was the idea that he would bring more stability in regards to the war machine that the US has created. The OP is suggesting that this idea might not be the case in reality.

 

[suncowiam]

Trump made open threats against Iran (via Twitter, of all things). One of the draws of Trump when he was campaigning was the idea that he would bring more stability in regards to the war machine that the US has created. The OP is suggesting that this idea might not be the case in reality.

Why the need to compare to Hillary to prove this point?

Trump appeared as a dove and now he appears to be a hawk.

What influence did Hillary have over Trump?

I can better understand a comparison to a previous president like Obama or Bush...

 

[suncowiam]

I know what Hillary wouldn't have done.

She wouldn't have tweeted a threat in all caps.

She probably have just launched the nukes being the feverish hawk she was. Then call the Iranian leader and tell him she's sending him some presents. "You'll have a blast when they arrive."

This is what we should be discussing in this thread right? What Hillary would have done?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why the need to compare to Hillary to prove this point?

Trump appeared as a dove and now he appears to be a hawk.

What influence did Hillary have over Trump?

I can better understand a comparison to a previous president like Obama or Bush...

I have no idea of why anyone would ever think of Trump as more of a dove than Hillary, but otherwise it would make sense to compare the two of them (as of late 2016).

 

[LuisDantas]

This is what we should be discussing in this thread right? What Hillary would have done?

Perhaps. But what should be done about Trump sure seems like a more practical and more urgent subject matter right now.

 

[Nakosis]

Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

Some seem to feel we reelected Obama. Not so much personality but both campaign as the outsider coming in to clean up the cesspool.

The independents seem to vote for whoever claims will clean up Washington.

Maybe it just shows politicians are more alike than they are different. Folks just like to hyper-focus on the differences. Unfortunately, we may be pass the point of the two parties being able to find common ground again.

 

[tytlyf]

You can tell the Trump is extremely angry/nervous about the FBI investigation.

 

[Underhill]

Trump threatens Iran with.....
"To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER
A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE
& DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
The above quote is from....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html

After Hillary threatened during the campaign to "obliterate Iran", it seems that
Trump is now channelling her hostility. This occurs with his reneging on the
nuclear agreement, his imposing new economic sanctions, & threatening allies
to coerce them to go along. I can't think of a better way to inspire Iran to want
nuclear weapons.


For those who don't already know, some historical highlights....
1953: We interfered with their election (OK when we do it to others) by having
the CIA stage a coup to overthrow an elected leader in order to install The Shah.
1980-88: We Supplied Iraq with military assistance (including WMDs, eg, chemical
weapons, biological weapons) in an unprovoked attack. Around a million Iranians
died in this conflict.
1988: We shoot down Iranian commercial airliner (Flight 655), killing 290 people.
It was an Airbus 300, which in no way resembles the F-14 we identified it as.

It's pretty clear that Iran has suffered greatly at our hands. From their perspective,
we cannot be trusted to be peaceful towards them, especially given Israel's hatred
for Iran, Israel's penchant for pre-emptive military attacks, & Israel's overwhelming
influence upon Americastanian leadership. To become a nuclear power would appear
to be the best way to fend off future US attacks.

War with Iran wouldn't benefit anyone (except Israel), including Trump.
(The economic costs of war would reduce his real estate equity.)
How is all this saber rattling putting Americastan 1st?

So let me get this straight. You are surprised that an old man with anger issues is a loose cannon?

 

[Revoltingest]

Post Saddam? I admit I don't follow the politics of that region closely, but I had thought Iran and Iraq got cozy once the Sunni minority lost control.

While they aren't the enemies they once were, we could
encourage hostilities with promise of aid & territory. If
this sounds overly cynical, remember that we've done it
before. And I sense Trump's being closer to Israeli
attitudes than previous administrations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some seem to feel we reelected Obama. Not so much personality but both campaign as the outsider coming in to clean up the cesspool.

The independents seem to vote for whoever claims will clean up Washington.

Maybe it just shows politicians are more alike than they are different. Folks just like to hyper-focus on the differences. Unfortunately, we may be pass the point of the two parties being able to find common ground again.

Common ground can be the most dangerous kind.